| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1994 SLG 1188 1994 SLD 1188 1994 CLC 446 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 8039 of 1991, decided on 9th March, 1993
RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J
A.K. Khalid for Petitioners. Farooq Bedar, Addl. A. G., Rana M. Arshad Khan, Addl.A. G. and Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui for
Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 8039 of 1991, decided on 9th March, 1993
RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J
A.K. Khalid for Petitioners. Farooq Bedar, Addl. A. G., Rana M. Arshad Khan, Addl.A. G. and Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui for
Respondents.
AHMAD KHAN and others
VS
MEMBER (CONS.), BOARD OF REVENUE and others
Law:
Section:
West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960)--- ----S. 13---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), ArL199---Consolidation operation---Reduction in the entitlement of petitioner during consolidation operation was to the extent of 8 Marlas only---Such decrease in the entitlement of petitioner (513 Kanals, 14 Marlas before Consolidation) had to be ignored in law, because in such like operations, small shortfall from original entitlement was likely to happen---No injustice appeared to have been done to petitioners, who were accommodated by Consolidation Authorities by giving them land in question, in accordance with law---Both quality and quantity-wise, claim of petitioners was satisfied---Finding of fact having been arrived at by competent forums, same was not open to judicial scrutiny in Constitutional jurisdiction---Finding of fact arrived at by the forums below was affirmed in circumstances. JUDGMENT Ahmad Khan and Rehmat.Khan, the petitioners have assailed the validity of order passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue on 14-7-1987 and another order passed by him in review on 24-4-1991, apparently on the grounds firstly that a substantial piece of land measuring 106 Kanals one Marla was reduced from their total entitlement and secondly the petitioners were not a party to the compromise alleged to have been entered into between the parties for the distribution of the land in question during the consolidation operation. Learned counsel submits that there was no authority vested in the respondent/Consolidation Authority to reduce their entitlement. His function, under the law, was to consolidate the scattered plots of land of the petitioners at one place. It is also contended that no consent was given by the petitioner to the arrangement, made by the Consolidation Officer, respondent No.4. Attention of the Court was drawn to the resolution having been passed over the controversy by the land-owners. 2. Learned counsel of the contesting respondents states that the petition suffers from laches and, delay on the face of record. He adds that quality-wise there was absolutely no decrease in the land of the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492